If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Back to Hobby Lobby, a bit of clarification to illustrate how the liberals molded the debate on the issue:

Henlee, because the companies are family companies who run their businesses according to their faith, for example, closing on Sundays in a society that practically demands that businesses be open 7 days a week. It would be quite difficult for a large corporation to prove that same devotion to a principle of faith. If it could somehow do that, then, yes, it might be treated like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Furniture.

If I deny a blood transfusion, the person denied has no alternative. If I deny 4 out of 20 birth control options, 16 options still remain. There should be no verdict based on what religious tenet is involved, but rather on whether how burdensome or dangerous it is to the life of another individual. Actually, this has nothing to due with contraception ... it is about abortion, i.e. drugs that destroy a fertilized egg. Further, the companies involved do NOT discriminate against those who disagree with their religious beliefs. Any employee is free to use those drugs at their own expense.

Perhaps to honor all beliefs, there should be O-care plans that do offer limited benefits? Then those who wish to employ abortion or drugs to induce it could purchase a "supplemental" plan to do so.

Another key to the decision was about how "burdensome" it would be to practice their religious beliefs. $475 million a year was deemed pretty burdensome.

I might expect that sooner or later someone will challenge Obamacare on the issue of abortion as it pertains to the law as well. There was mention that in some states there was no policy on some state exchanges that did not cover abortion. So anyone who objects to abortion on religious grounds is still compelled to pay premiums that will fund someone else's abortion. Through subsidies given to premiums through Federal funds, so is everybody else. Regardless of my or your position on abortion, we know that many have strong religious objections to it. And not just Christians. I suspect that eventually that issue will come before the SC as well.

I'm also waiting to see a Muslim use a "religious belief" defense in a prosecution for an "honor killing."

I guess I have a hard time accepting that answer.

If a business was say Christian Scientist and did not believe in vaccines they would still have to provide them per the supreme court, because they limited the decision to contraceptive mandate, yet it is equally as valid as a religious argument. If it is limited to abortion, because it is a child being murdered, then isn't the objection legal rather than religious? If they are saying that they understand that other people are going to have to violate their religious beliefs and provide services that go against their faith, but the SC decided that their objections were without merit?

As to the other issue if a public corporation took a stock holder vote and decided to have a religious view on something would that be enough to also allow them this exemption?

"Itís hard to win an argument with a smart person, but itís damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." - Bill Murray

Sorry to jump in late and muddy the waters but I am confused at those who think plan b is an abortifacients and the monthly pack of pills cannot be used as such. Plan b is levonorgestrel at a dose of 1.5mg and some of the monthly pills contain levonorgestrel at 0.15mg. Hence 1 monthly pack contains enough drug to commit 2 abortions. I stand with those who either believe all pills go against their religion are that it is ok for all.

If a business was say Christian Scientist and did not believe in vaccines they would still have to provide them per the supreme court, because they limited the decision to contraceptive mandate, yet it is equally as valid as a religious argument. If it is limited to abortion, because it is a child being murdered, then isn't the objection legal rather than religious? If they are saying that they understand that other people are going to have to violate their religious beliefs and provide services that go against their faith, but the SC decided that their objections were without merit?

As to the other issue if a public corporation took a stock holder vote and decided to have a religious view on something would that be enough to also allow them this exemption?

Henlee....this court decision was limited in two ways. First Hobby Lobby limited it themselves by only asking for an exception for the 4 drugs that specifically cause abortions. Second the court limited to how "burdensome" it would be to practice their religious beliefs. Although this case could be used by lawyers to try and support additional exemptions from Obamacare, in and of itself, it is very limited in scope.

Why though should it only include abortion or contraceptives? If one finds funding any activity against their religious beliefs? To me if the supreme court was going to accept one it should have to accept them all.

I don't think so. That would then mean that killing someone in self-defense is no different from killing someone for no reason at all.

I think the point of distinction always has to be whether the practice of your religious rights endangers someone else's rights. I believe that is the very distinction I make myself. Preventing conception is not the same as ending a pregnancy. The Catholic Church (and possibly some other sects) do not make that distinction.

Hence 1 monthly pack contains enough drug to commit 2 abortions. I stand with those who either believe all pills go against their religion are that it is ok for all.

Used according to label, the BC pills will simply prevent conception. Morphine will relieve pain, but unsupervised use can lead to addiction, and an overdose will kill you. Same for many other drugs. Hence the need for medical oversight in the use of these drugs, i.e. a prescription.

You might also say it's the same as limiting guns for everyone because there will be some people are going to use them for criminal reasons. Because we so infrequently discuss the negative impact of abortions on women, we overlook that drug-induced or "manual" abortions can also be deleterious to a woman's health. Women died as a result of Gosnell's butcher shops. There are women for whom hormone-effecting drugs are contra-indicated. All of these options merit medical oversight.

Why does the left view this ruling so broadly, when the SC, itself, was cleer to point out its limited scope? In fact, Justice Kennedy actually said that the govt could simply obviate the need for this decision by simply applying the regulation exemption used for non-profits to business entities like this? After all, there is no mention of contraception in the law. It is based on the bureaucratic "regulation" added by HHS.

Why? Simple. It is now a political football. Already the administration is framing this as Rs taking away rights. Why are they framing the discussion as opposition to contraception, which it is absolutely NOT. (Some might call that lying.) Obama wants to take it to Congress for a high-profile political discourse ... when the regulation can be amended without Congress. The administration has ignored laws at will, but not this time? Take the public eye off the IRS, the VA, general wasteful incompetence ... "Look! Over there! A squirrel!"

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

So the talking points from the left are exposed to be lies and misrepresentations, so they move on to tactic number 2 - deflect and attack Hobby Lobby for buying products from China. I made the mistake of reading some of the comments below the Huffpo article. It scares me to death how misinformed, uneducated and confused some of our fellow citizens truly are.

Matt McKenzie

"Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it." Henry Ford

So the talking points from the left are exposed to be lies and misrepresentations, so they move on to tactic number 2 - deflect and attack Hobby Lobby for buying products from China. I made the mistake of reading some of the comments below the Huffpo article. It scares me to death how misinformed, uneducated and confused some of our fellow citizens truly are.

and yet Hobby Lobby pays their employees double the minimum wage, you would think under most circumstances they would be a lib favorite

Executor of the Alanson C Brown III - Trust

Originally Posted by lanse brown

A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

Henlee....this court decision was limited in two ways. First Hobby Lobby limited it themselves by only asking for an exception for the 4 drugs that specifically cause abortions. Second the court limited to how "burdensome" it would be to practice their religious beliefs. Although this case could be used by lawyers to try and support additional exemptions from Obamacare, in and of itself, it is very limited in scope.

ok I understand that, but if the SC found it burdensome then why would that not open the floodgates to all religious objections? If the SC would treat all Religious exceptions the same than why not have a less limited ruling. It seems to me that they are saying that all RO are not the same and that seems wrong to me.

"Itís hard to win an argument with a smart person, but itís damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." - Bill Murray

Sorry to jump in late and muddy the waters but I am confused at those who think plan b is an abortifacients and the monthly pack of pills cannot be used as such. Plan b is levonorgestrel at a dose of 1.5mg and some of the monthly pills contain levonorgestrel at 0.15mg. Hence 1 monthly pack contains enough drug to commit 2 abortions. I stand with those who either believe all pills go against their religion are that it is ok for all.

The problem lies in where does life begin. Some people believe that it begins at conception as soon as the sperm enters the egg, Some people believe that it begins as soon as cells begin to divide, Some people believe that it begins as soon as the fetus is developed and others believe that it begins as the fetus becomes self viable. There are some who believe that it begins as soon as it draws breath. So at what point does abortion become murder? That is a 9 full months of gray area right there.

"Itís hard to win an argument with a smart person, but itís damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." - Bill Murray